The computer implemented method and system disclosed herein, in general, relates to conducting debates. More particularly, the computer implemented method and system disclosed herein relates to conducting individualized, virtually moderated, and virtual real time methodical debates.
A component of effectiveness in debating is the availability of the debate to a viewing audience in a compelling manner. An in-depth coverage of a debate on a complex topic lasting over five hours, and conceivably fifty or more hours, is likely to alienate audiences who are not prepared to spend more than 30 minutes to two hours of attentive viewing. In a traditional debate, the panelists may not be able to methodically challenge each other without interruptions. A methodical real time debate would burden the viewing audience by making the audience wait extended periods between the delivery of an objectionable statement in the midst of a longer discourse, the expression of an objection, the counter-response, and so on for sufficient levels of follow-up discussion. Such a format is difficult for an audience to follow when multiple objectionable statements are being addressed at the same time, and the debate significantly exceeds the 30 minutes to 2 hours duration a typical audience is willing to devote to attendance. When one considers the complexity of the issues facing contemporary society, it is apparent that the time allocated to traditional debates is highly inadequate. Frequently, the experts are allowed a mere 15 minutes sum total each, or even less, to make all of their primary points, to respond to challenges from co-panelists, and to challenge statements made by their co-panelists. The practical necessity of such real time debates to be time-limited thus results in a product that can more accurately be described as thought-provoking entertainment than as a tool to methodically scrutinize the different representations of the facts presented by the expert panel.
Furthermore, traditional real time broadcasts of a debate are deficient since the possibility of making source documents available when panelists disagree on the wording of the source documents is low, because the source documents that the panelists refer to is not necessarily known in advance. Also, the traditional debates do not in a timely fashion incorporate charts, graphs, animations, and other visuals to explicate a point.
Traditional debates do not have an effective method for panelists to challenge each other. In some traditional formats, panelists are allowed to interrupt each other. Hence, every panelist may not have an opportunity to finish a point uninterrupted. Furthermore, such a format is usually disordered and does not allow the sequence of a key point being made, followed by a response, then a counter-response to the challenger by the initial person who made the key point, then a follow-up response by the challenger, and so-on, which is desired to methodically complete the discussion.
Another traditional format provides a setting where a first speaker takes a turn, and then a co-panelist responds. Sometimes the original speaker is given a chance to respond again, though typically the challenge ends there, and thus there is little or no opportunity for the back-and-forth succession that is necessary for a methodical discussion. This format is difficult for the audience to follow because the response is expressed minutes after the initial offending comment is made. A counter-response to the challenge, if expressed, is further separated in time with respect to any specific challenge.
For the reasons described above, the time duration for traditional debates necessarily limits the debate to only include a few panelists making only a few key points without the methodical discussion to reconcile the differences. Also, a real time environment makes it difficult for many panelists to contribute in an organized manner. Hence, the number of panelists rarely exceeds six. Additionally, retaining a number of panelists at the same time, if not also at the same place, for an extended period of time is often impractical. This makes it less likely that the most qualified panelists are assembled together, and thus the debate is more susceptible to a position being represented by a weak panelist. An additional source of bias is that the choice of panelists is often made by a single individual, typically the producer of the debate.
Also, the traditional format of debating does not address the need for extending the number of panelists to include specialist expert opinions. Debate constraints as described typically results in the necessity of having to rely on generalist panelists for complex issues, to the exclusion of sub-topic experts. A panelist considered as a topic generalist on a complex issue may wish to yield a portion of time to a sub-topic expert in order to illuminate an aspect best represented by such particular expertise.
Hence, there is a need for a more effective manner of conducting debates. There is a need for conducting an individualized, virtually-moderated, and virtual real time debate by creating the debate in a non-real time manner, and presenting the debate in an interactive manner, customized to the preferences of the viewer, and with the appearance in some aspects of a real time debate, but enhanced over the possibilities of a real time format.